My father had recently retired from the force when NYC did this in the late 80s-early 90s. They concentrated on turnstile jumpers ,panhandlers, & squeegee men. My father & his friends still on the force were furious at first--why waste time chasing kids in the subway for such a minor offense? But then more & more of those jumpers & panhandlers ended up having outstanding warrants for all sorts of other crimes, many of them violent. So, by concentrating on the smaller crimes, they were finding some pretty big fish they'd already wasted resources trying to find in the past. And the city's crime rate as a whole dropped.

Good luck with that San Berntardino. Maybe they can lock the panhandlers up in prison since there's tons of room there. Or, maybe they could go back to elementary school, learn math, and take a look at why their city is bankrupt in the first place.

My father had recently retired from the force when NYC did this in the late 80s-early 90s. They concentrated on turnstile jumpers ,panhandlers, & squeegee men. My father & his friends still on the force were furious at first--why waste time chasing kids in the subway for such a minor offense? But then more & more of those jumpers & panhandlers ended up having outstanding warrants for all sorts of other crimes, many of them violent. So, by concentrating on the smaller crimes, they were finding some pretty big fish they'd already wasted resources trying to find in the past. And the city's crime rate as a whole dropped.

Or, the nation's economy was getting stronger and crime rates were going down everywhere (not just cities following the 'Broken Window Theory'). The 'less crime after the unleaded gas switchover' theory has at least as much going for it.

My father had recently retired from the force when NYC did this in the late 80s-early 90s. They concentrated on turnstile jumpers ,panhandlers, & squeegee men. My father & his friends still on the force were furious at first--why waste time chasing kids in the subway for such a minor offense? But then more & more of those jumpers & panhandlers ended up having outstanding warrants for all sorts of other crimes, many of them violent. So, by concentrating on the smaller crimes, they were finding some pretty big fish they'd already wasted resources trying to find in the past. And the city's crime rate as a whole dropped.

Or, the nation's economy was getting stronger and crime rates were going down everywhere (not just cities following the 'Broken Window Theory'). The 'less crime after the unleaded gas switchover' theory has at least as much going for it.

Yes, there were many factors that possibly contributed to the decline in crime.

skinink:"Madden noted that San Bernardino has significant problems, including gangs and drugs, but that's not what officers hear about.

"The vast majority" of complaints are about panhandling, he said."

Are the cops just being purposely dense by suggesting panhandling should take priority over gangs and drugs or do they just want to tackle the easy problems and avoid the tough ones?

It seems the cops plan to devote more resources to the most common problem, and not by arresting panhandlers they have nowhere to put. I suspect the revolving door frustrates them at least as much as those arrested.

Part one of the plan is to train all officers on how to handle panhandlers. I'm sure all cops already know how to arrest someone; they'll be trained to provide info on social services instead of arresting. Part two is train all cops to discourage giving money to panhandlers.

Idiots with egos. There are no new solutions to panhandling. Support mental health care, support those who have hit hard times. It's not cheap but it's the only way to have an affect.

If one can't support the downtrodden from a selfless position, do it from self interest to protect your property and safety. This isn't a new problem and it's egotistic and idiotic to think enforcement policies will work in one community when they have failed everywhere else.

I bet the council folks think they can stop prostitution with police enforcement too.

Gangs, smart ones anyway, don't target civilians, that's a good way to bring unwanted attention, if gang members want to steal from and kill eachother, the average taxpayer doesn't care that much. They do however care about being accosted by aggressive panhandlers.

My father had recently retired from the force when NYC did this in the late 80s-early 90s. They concentrated on turnstile jumpers ,panhandlers, & squeegee men. My father & his friends still on the force were furious at first--why waste time chasing kids in the subway for such a minor offense? But then more & more of those jumpers & panhandlers ended up having outstanding warrants for all sorts of other crimes, many of them violent. So, by concentrating on the smaller crimes, they were finding some pretty big fish they'd already wasted resources trying to find in the past. And the city's crime rate as a whole dropped.

So the broken windows theory achieves results, but not for the reasons described by the broken windows theory. Reality is that if you bust someone for a minor crime you have a greater opportunity to investigate him for bigger crimes and are more likely to find some. Minor crimes tend to be committed more carelessly and therefor are easier to discover.

I always thought the theory was rather weak. Seeing broken windows does not significantly increase someone's propensity to rob banks. Deterring window-breaking gives criminals more time to spend on bank robberies.

Long Duck Dong's Aww-toe-moe-beeel:Good luck with that San Berntardino. Maybe they can lock the panhandlers up in prison since there's tons of room there. Or, maybe they could go back to elementary school, learn math, and take a look at why their city is bankrupt in the first place.

This is it in a nutshell. I used to stop at a certain 7-11 fairly often on the way home from work to get gas, a hot dog, whatever. Then I started getting consistently approached by aggressive panhandlers whenever I stopped there, oftentimes the same person who had 'just ran out of gas and needed a couple of bucks to get home' weeks apart.

I mentioned the problem to the manager there, but nothing was ever done about it, so I just stopped going to that store, and I imagine others have done the same.

I have no problem donating food or money to shelters or food banks, or having my tax dollars support shelters, rehab centers, or other programs to help get those who are down on their luck the help they need, but I draw the line at being harassed by those who refuse to help themselves through legitimate means.

Drug crime and gang violence are often highly localized in poorer neighborhoods where residents either have a fear/distrust of the police or who feel (perhaps from experience) that complaining about it won't change the situation, while panhandlers and beggars obviously try to get maximum return by doing their thing in middle class or wealthy neighborhoods, but those residents are more likely to see the police as allies and are going to be more vocal in calling for something to be done. It's not surprising that there could be more complaints about panhandling than gangs or drug crime.

makes sense. The concept of "out of sight out of mind" carries a lot of currency in white suburban culture. It doesn't matter that lil johnny is strung out on scag so long as lil johnny isn't laying unwashed in the corner wearing only his boxers drooling on himself during the dinner party. If they can scrub up all the evidence of poverty then it's almost like the problem doesn't exsist. Until home invasion becomes a regional team sport that is.

round up your panhandlers and take them to farms to pick fruits & vegetables so they can earn money to feed & clothe themselves. people need chores done, houses painted, garages cleaned. let panhandlers have the chance to do for themselves and have some pride. the ones that just want to be panhandler bums who refuse to work but are not mentally ill? slit their throats and leave a sign on the bodies for others to learn by.

Gifted Many Few:They should target bums. Nothing can kill tourism faster than someone that smells like drugs and feces walking around the public areas.

It shouldn't be illegal to be homeless. If you don't like the way homeless people smell you could do your part by paying for a group of them to have access to a hotel room for a day so they can shower. I bet you've never done that. Far easier to treat humans like garbage, huh?

Greylight:Just to add some more food for thought. The most expensive solution is jail. The second most expensive solution is homeless shelters and food banks. The third is state welfare.

It's not about saving money, it's about not having to see the results of policies.

Which is why the solutions should be tried in order from least to most expensive.

Welfare programs need to exist in order to help those who are down on their luck, or who are victims of unexpected circumstances, to allow them to stay afloat until they can get another job and get fully back on their feet. Such programs should come with ironclad time limits with lifetime maximum payouts as well as requirements that those receiving the money must provide proof of an active job search. I'd be fine with publicly funded employment assistance services here too - anything from resume help to free training for positions that are needed in the community to temporary government jobs so that at least some return in labor can be made on the money spent on the programs.

For those who exhaust their welfare allowance without finding employment, or who refuse to either attempt to get or hold down a job, there should be shelters, food banks, and rehab centers so that no one is left sleeping on the streets at night or left facing the prospect of having to rob someone to stave off starving to death. The focus should be to try to return as many of the people in these programs as possible back into mainstream society with counseling, treatment to break addictions, and again job training as needed.

Finally, for those that refuse to help themselves through any of the other programs available, there needs to be a stick to counter the carrot. Perhaps the first time someone is arrested for vagrancy they can be taken to a shelter instead of jail with an official warning, the second time made to spend the night in lockup, but after that there should be real prison time involved - force them to work in chain gangs during the day, hard physical labor, so that people will realize that their options are to either help themselves and work towards a job they want and freedom, or by continuing to refuse to participate in society be forced to do whatever job the state assigns without any freedom.